A Well-Regulated Militia?
- Thread starter JennyB
- Start date
mial42
Gone Fishin'
The US was expanding against dozens of Indian tribes. As soon as one (say, the Seminoles) puts up too much of a fight for local militias, or there's some sort of secession/nullification crisis, or there's a territorial dispute with Mexico or the British, or... Hell, the big reason the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution was the need for a stronger central authority; the people writing and voting on said Constitution knew that said stronger central authority needed some sort of military to be able to do its job of protecting the country.
A lot smaller.
OTL, the War of 1812 showed how very, very ineffective the militias were - especially if you wanted to invade someone.
Without a regular army, even as small and as badly led as it was, the US loses the War of 1812 far worse than OTL, and might well lose Michigan, possibly even WI MN, and points west.
There's going to be no Mexican American war, so no California, Nevada New Mexico, etc.
OTL, the War of 1812 showed how very, very ineffective the militias were - especially if you wanted to invade someone.
Without a regular army, even as small and as badly led as it was, the US loses the War of 1812 far worse than OTL, and might well lose Michigan, possibly even WI MN, and points west.
There's going to be no Mexican American war, so no California, Nevada New Mexico, etc.
Last edited:
Without Army and militia units to play off each other, Andrew Jackson doesn't win the Creek war, never gets famous, never defends New Orleans, or conquers Florida.
So the US also lacks Florida and probably New Orleans.
She may, in fact, not have any Gulf coast at all.
So the US also lacks Florida and probably New Orleans.
She may, in fact, not have any Gulf coast at all.
Interesting indeed. If there is no recognizable standing army, Andy Jackson might just have lost the battle of New Orleans? This POSSIBLY might have led the British Admiral in charge to ignore his orders and use the might of the British Navy to just proceed up the Mississippi as far as St. Lewis? All of the pieces might have been in place.
Perhaps Western expansion of the fledgling United States might have stopped at the Mississippi River for quite some time? British sea power or in this case river power.
Perhaps Western expansion of the fledgling United States might have stopped at the Mississippi River for quite some time? British sea power or in this case river power.
When and how could the USA decide against a permanent standing army? The need for one had been apparent to plenty during the Revolution, you'd have to somehow achieve independence but avert George Washington's presidency to avoid even the nucleus of a regular army to be formed by the executive branch, and the first major conflict the USA found itself in was not against the British but against the native Western Confederacy. So you'd have to assume that not only is Washington somehow not the president, but that nobody learns any lessons from a possibly even worse Battle of the Wabash and there's no Legion of the United States that actually won that war and gone on to become the United States Army.
So basically, the lot of you are talking about denying the butterfly effect for several decades to give the British a win in a somehow otherwise unchanged War of 1812 against a United States that barely resembles that of OTL and somehow refused to learn any lessons from its biggest defeats and wouldn't even be in a position to start a War of 1812.
So basically, the lot of you are talking about denying the butterfly effect for several decades to give the British a win in a somehow otherwise unchanged War of 1812 against a United States that barely resembles that of OTL and somehow refused to learn any lessons from its biggest defeats and wouldn't even be in a position to start a War of 1812.
How about if, instead of simply NOT having a standing army, this ATL US relied on some system of regular state forces (allocated through some means to be determined) that are maintained in an active status by the states but made available to the federal government?
Deleted member 90949
The US was a frontier society. Maintaining forts and outposts required some form of standing military.
Sailing up the Mississippi?
Because that’s what ships did before steam engines. Just sail up the Mississippi.
Though I could see some treaty ports, New Orleans, Mobile, maybe Galveston, et al, similar to Hong Kong, etc.
IIRC that's what they actually did, they had a few states pool together forces that were raised for a year's time into the First American Regiment. This regiment and a bunch of state militias were then annihilated at the Wabash by Little Turtle and Blue Jacket and Congress finally realized Washington was right and America needed some form of standing professional army.